tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post7796895124849763694..comments2024-03-18T08:02:51.154-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Leadership LessonsStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-34683425681757961192014-06-03T16:39:26.447-07:002014-06-03T16:39:26.447-07:00Good topic, and lots of room for learning.
I see ...Good topic, and lots of room for learning.<br /><br />I see there may be some (lost) virtue in the "authoritarian approach", especially to get someone to try something new, that is to say, if you wait until someone feels confident in a new task, they may never want to try it, so you need to help them get over the hump. So if I say "do this", I'm also say "I'm taking responsibility for your success, you just need to try." and some fraction of the time that can work.<br /><br />I consider this especially in regards to physical skills that take practice, thus the ideal of "coaching" arises, someone who can give you an explicit set of steps to reach a goal, whether your goal, or a task assigned to you. And I remember reading somewhere that it takes a certain number of repetitions to learn a new task.<br /><br />But the second side of that is you often don't want tasks done purely mechanically, just following rigid procedures, but want adaptability also, and that requires freedom to use autonomy in how tasks are performed, as long as the needed results are created.<br /><br />I also remember there were studies that said money was a motivator to some point at least for work that requires creativity, that is the point where you don't need to worry about money, BUT also not more than that, where high-performance for high-rewards produces worse results than ordinary rewards.<br /><br />Anyway, the biggest issue for me might be a "freedom to fail" or freedom to make mistakes, so any situation where I have to learn to do something new and perform perfectly, I'm going to basically error on the side of being too slow, and if you call me out on being too slow, I'll give up, unless I can see its okay to make mistakes.<br /><br />I think of speed-chess, which I absolutely hated, but once I accepted it was possible to lose a game in 5 minutes rather than an hour, I found it fun, since I had more chances to start over when I made mistakes.<br /><br />But back to leadership, it does seem to me that managers I've known, those who haven't been professionally trained, always error on being too soft, too lenient on solid standards or calling out failure.<br /><br />I think of the Four Agreements as a good step for leaders or followers.<br />http://www.amazon.com/The-Four-Agreements-Practical-Personal/dp/1878424319<br />http://www.humanpotentialunlimited.com/Summary-content.html<br />1. Be Impeccable with Your Word<br />2. Don't Take Anything Personally<br />3. Don't Make Assumptions<br />4. Always Do Your Best <br /><br />A leader who is unpredictable or inconsistent won't be trusted. A leader who sees your mistakes as a stain on them, will overreact to mistakes. A leader who fails to communicate clearly and verify agreements will cause stress. And a leader who is afraid to show his own mistakes will teach others to hide theirs as well.<br /><br />I like the idea that leaders set standards, and work to help everyone bridge the gaps between intention and result, and thus requires being a good mirror, showing what you see without distortion. But on the other side, confidence is needed, and so some manipulation or coercion can be useful to help people try something new, and so a leader has to be willing to carry some negative projections a while.<br /><br />I've paid attention and seen more than I've had courage and success in my little efforts. But seeing things from a leader's point of view also helps give sympathy when someone is bossing you around too! :)Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-91138520687200731562014-06-03T15:44:10.888-07:002014-06-03T15:44:10.888-07:00An important subject; I may write a more substanti...An important subject; I may write a more substantial comment on it later. Largely missing from the article is that the internal service providers you are asking to do work for you...the lawyer or the graphics artist or the programmer...aren't otherwise usually working on their OWN work; they're working on other projects that other people have asked them to do. The issue is one of priorities. The right approach to relationship-building and request-phrasing can make a difference in many cases, but organizational design is very, very important here. If you have 3 graphics artists and 30 engineers working for centralized graphics and engineering departments, the problem of getting something done will be quite different from in a value-stream or federally-decentralized organization in which individual graphics artists and engineers are assigned to a particular product initiative, either on a temporary project basis or on an ongoing basis.David Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464681514800720063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-46585199035504667792014-06-03T08:12:35.832-07:002014-06-03T08:12:35.832-07:00Advice like this has value, but there is a downsid...Advice like this has value, but there is a downside. It's about manipulating people and that's not always so good.<br /><br />Ideally, we should be candid and upfront about things. Of course, there are times when we resort to other means. <br /><br />Anyway, manipulation should be the last resort, not the preferred way of doing things. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com